Practicing Humanities and Social Sciences in Management Education

In the history of higher education, the position of the business
school at universities has becomes increasingly prominent, yet also
considerably questioned and contested. In recent times, there seems
to be at least one so-called “crisis” per decennium that
calls provocatively for “a debate” (Willmott, 1994),
points at “the end of business schools” (Pfeffer and
Fong, 2002), proposes “a hard look” at management
education (Mintzberg, 2004), or suggests that business schools have
“lost their way” (Bennis and O’Toole, 2005) or
sees them “in ruins” (Starkey and Tempest, 2006),
followed then by calls for rethinking management education (French
and Grey, 1996), for linking to the Social Sciences and Humanities
(Zald, 1996) or developing new agendas (Clegg, Dany and Grey, 2011).
These concerns with the identity of business schools and the future
outlook of management education are also fed by successive financial
crises, ethical scandals and ecological disasters.

Against this background of critical attention, there is an
increasing inquiry into the historic conditions and the development
over time of the business school and management education (Augier
and March, 2011; Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan and Dolle, 2011; Khurana,
2007; O’Connor, 2012; Starkey and Tiratsoo, 2007). These
studies also provide the current debate with new routes to consider
as they call for an intensified reliance on Liberal Education,
giving new prominence to the Humanities, Social Sciences and
Sciences. One of the main ideas concerning the direction and outlook
of the educational philosophy, programmes and practices that ground
the future of management education is to look at and find solutions
to the tension between offering a general, academic education in the
tradition of the Liberal Arts that orients learning at ethical
responsibility within a broader socio-cultural framework and the
need for a specialist and practice-oriented learner profile that can
draw upon technical skills and practical wisdom. The scope and
direction of management education becomes then a subject matter of
great importance as it connects the future of the business school
university to the shaping of tomorrow’s society and
organizations.

In this debate, the Carnegie II Report on “The Future of
Business Education” (Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan and Dolle, 2011)
brings the integration of Liberal learning into Undergraduate (and
Graduate) Business Education as one of the central challenges for
Business Universities. Giving a clear answer, the Carnegie Report
proposes that dealing with the complexities of a globalized world
market and societies under transition requires various essential
competencies: analytical skills, multi-perspectivism and personal
growth and mastery, which are related through an integrative
practical skill of a future employee or entrepreneur thrown into the
cultural and technical dynamics of worldwide capitalism.

The questions arising from the description that globally accelerated
socio-cultural and economic changes call for different qualities and
thus a different kind of education have different layers. As a first
approximation, once could separate three of them. The first is the
general strategy in coping with the challenges, which could range
from a clear focus on disciplinary formations (i.e. only Banking
& Finance, e.g.) to the construction of a broader and more
integrative curriculum. The second layer pertains to the
implementation of Bachelor and Master Degree programs within the
given framework of established norms (such as the Bologna-reform in
Europe) which vary considerably across countries and continents,
notwithstanding globalization, commercialization and standardization
of knowledge. The third and most practical level is the
organization, pedagogical models and didactics of courses that make
the ends meet: Linking theories and research methods of the
Humanities and the Social Sciences to problems that Business
students are familiar with through their studies. The challenge of
this last layer is to overcome the implicit binarism of
“add-on” concerns of the Humanities and the Social
Sciences and hegemonic knowledge of the “core” classes
by integrating multi-faceted dimensions into the lecture format.

Goal setting of the current workshop
This workshop continues a series of conversations which have taken
momentum following the Carnegie Report, such as the Copenhagen
Roundtable in October 2011 at the Copenhagen Business School, the
Aspen Institute Conference in March 2012, the Professional
Development Workshop on “Integrating liberal learning and
business education: Putting the Carnegie Report into practice”
at the Academy of Management in Boston in August 2012. To organize
the next conversation at the University of St Gallen is no
coincidence as this public university has a long tradition in
thinking Management Education in broader frameworks. From Hans
Ulrich’s cybernetically informed, ‘holistic’
Management Model of the 1960ies to the Contextual Studies Program
implemented as a result of the Bologna reform process in 2002/2003,
the idea of a Management Education embedded in larger concerns, ways
of thinking and methodologies has a unique and rich history in St
Gallen.
For this workshop, we have identified three goals:

1. Continue the momentum of the series of meetings by providing a
platform where key contributions of the debate so far are in
conversation with the prominent actors engaged with this theme at
the University of St Gallen.
2. Develop reflexive examples of interesting, successful and
innovative course concepts, pedagogical models and program
philosophies that can help to make more concrete our commitment to
the shared purpose of rethinking Business Education for the 21st
century.
3. Consider the continuation of this debate in terms of publication
strategies, and the potential development of a Compendium to the
Humanities and Social Sciences in Management Education.

The discussions will be continued in Copenhagen in June 2013
(5.-7.6.2013)